55_2009!06!11_opposition Re #24 Belcher Motion to Dismiss

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,vs.ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.::::::::::Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

ORDER THIS CAUSE

came before the United States District Court Judge, Honorable EduardoC. Robreno on Defendant’s Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/awww.obamacitzenshipdebate.org

Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action betransferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a). Having reviewedthe Motion and Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to said Motion and for good cause shown, it ishereby

ORDERED

that Defendant’s Linda Sue Belcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitch a/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/awww.obamacitzenshipdebate.org Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative the Action betransferred to the Western District of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) is

DENIED

.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Dated: June _____, 2009 _____________________________ Hon. Eduardo C. RobrenoUnited States District Court JudgeFor the Eastern District of PA

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss2

Law Offices of:

Philip J. Berg, Esquire

555 Andorra Glen Court, Suite 12Lafayette Hill, PA 19444-2531Identification No. 09867(610) 825-3134

Attorney for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LISA LIBERI, et al,Plaintiffs,vs.ORLY TAITZ, et al,Defendants.::::::::::Case No.: 09-cv-01898-ECR

PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT, LINDA SUE BELCHER a/k/a LINDA S. BELCHER a/k/a BELCHER STARR a/k/a NEWWOMENSPARTY a/k/aSTITCHENWITCH a/k/a EVA BRAUN a/k/a WEB SERGEANT a/k/aWWW.OBAMACITIZENSHIPDEBATE.ORGMOTION TO DISMISS OR IN THEALTERNATIVE TRANSFER THE ACTION TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OFTEXAS PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1406(a)

Plaintiffs’ Lisa Liberi [hereinafter “Liberi”]; Philip J. Berg, Esquire [hereinafter “Berg”],the Law Offices of Philip J. Berg; Evelyn Adams a/k/a Momma E [hereinafter “Adams”]; LisaOstella [hereinafter “Ostella”]; and Go Excel Global by and through their undersigned counsel,Philip J. Berg, Esquire files the within Response in Opposition to Defendant’s, Linda SueBelcher a/k/a Linda S. Belcher a/k/a Belcher Starr a/k/a Newwomensparty a/k/a Stitchenwitcha/k/a Eva Braun a/k/a Web Sergeant a/k/awww.obamacitzenshipdebate.org[hereinafter “Belcher”] Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative to transfer the within action to the WesternDistrict of Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) on the following grounds:

Z:\Liberi, et al, Response in Opposition to Defendant Belcher’s Motion to Dismiss3

• Belcher’s Motion is an improper Motion. Belcher fails to support her Motion toDismiss or in the alternative to transfer the case to the Western District of Texas with anytype of Statute or supporting Law. Defendant Orly Taitz, Esq. by her own admission prepared Belcher’s Answer and Motion to Dismiss. Despite this, Plaintiffs‘will assumeBelcher is filing said Motion pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12;• This Court has subject matter Jurisdiction pursuant to Diversity Jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332, as outlined in Plaintiffs’ Complaint;• Belcher’s Motion fails to address any claims in Plaintiffs’ Complaint and fails togive any type of legally sufficient defense;• Belcher subjected herself to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania when she calledPlaintiff Berg and asked him to bring the action forward; and agreed to moderate Berg’sPennsylvania website blog;• Belcher is only requesting the transfer of this case to the Western District of Texas for a tactical advantage and to follow through with her threats made towardsPlaintiffs’ if they avail themselves to her “redneck town”;• Belcher has failed to state any type of hardships; has failed to list any witnesses inthe Western District of Texas; and has failed to cite any type of convenience issues pertaining to witnesses;• This Court is the proper forum and venue is proper for this case pursuant to 28U.S.C. 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(2) and §1391(a)(3);• Pursuant to Diversified Jurisdiction 28 U.S.C. §1332(a); and Venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a)(3), this Court only has to have personal jurisdiction over one (1) Defendant, which has been met in the within Action; and

of 00

Leave a Comment